Search results

While the International Criminal Court (icc) strives for justice for atrocity crimes throughout the world, increasingly, its legitimacy is undermined: powerful states refuse to join, African states prepare to leave, victims do not feel their needs for justice are met. This article argues that this is due to contradicting assumptions and too many objectives attached to the expectations of international criminal justice, which pull and push what the criminal trial is supposed to do in too many directions, undermining what it can do, raising too high expectations, and leading to disappointment. The article analyses the critique as rooted in a misunderstanding of what 'justice' is, what a criminal trial can do, and how inherently political international criminal justice is and only can be. It concludes with some observations on what this entails for strengthening the legitimacy of the icc by matching expectations to what it can and cannot do.

On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, leaving no survivors. Since, victims' relatives, States, and the wider public are trying to understand what happened, how it could happen, who is responsible, and how to address these responsibilities. The efforts to find justice have faced many complications and legal complexities. This article aims to provide insight into these legal and political complexities. In particular, it discusses the core legal questions of the criminal accountability of the perpetrators and the State responsibility of those States involved —Ukraine and Russia— through the legal doctrines of public international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It further offers some core considerations relating to civil liability of States and airline carriers. In addition to providing insight into why the road to justice is long and arduous, the legal options available, and the specific challenges of each, the article also emphasises that having a legal option does not necessarily mean that it is also the best choice to use it. That choice is up to victims' relatives and the States concerned. The article takes no position in this regard. Instead, it seeks to provide an analysis that may contribute to making such decisions in an informed manner.